Probably because there is no world-wide standard on reporting crime. Most countries can't even agree on what crimes are violent and what crimes aren't. Something else... statistics can be used to support whatever viewpoint the reporter wants them to support. The reality is, there's no direct correlation between gun ownership and crime rates that can't be explained a dozen different ways. It all depends on things like whether local law enforcement is strict or lax, on population pressure vs. living space, on poverty rates, on local traditions and mores... I'm not nearly social scientist enough to list all the causes and/or ameliorating factors of crime.

One thing that I do know about, though, is how critical the idea of personal responsibility is. If a person is willing to take responsibility for his actions, and recognize the harm that he could do with a firearm, then it really doesn't matter how many guns he owns. He probably won't be a violent criminal. On the other hand, if a person is always blaming his misfortunes on others, thinking that the world owes him a living, and if he doesn't care who he has to hurt or what kind of heinous actions he has to perform in order to have his needs met, then it doesn't matter if all guns instantly vanished from the face of the Earth. He would just use a knife, a club, or his bare hands to get his satisfaction.

And he's the reason why law-abiding citizens will always need some means of self-defense against him.

Funny, when I am wearing a pistol in a hip holster no one comes near and I feel quite safe. Likewise when I put a rifle in the gun rack of my truck to go hunting I feel quite secure. And that SCUD Missile in the bed of my truck keeps other vehicles at least 200 ft. away.

Funny, when I am wearing a pistol in a hip holster no one comes near and I feel quite safe. Likewise when I put a rifle in the gun rack of my truck to go hunting I feel quite secure. And that SCUD Missile in the bed of my truck keeps other vehicles at least 200 ft. away.

*tasers you in the balls* i'm kind of feeling kind of safe myself, now

Funny, when I am wearing a pistol in a hip holster no one comes near and I feel quite safe. Likewise when I put a rifle in the gun rack of my truck to go hunting I feel quite secure. And that SCUD Missile in the bed of my truck keeps other vehicles at least 200 ft. away.

Yeah, but that SCUD missile carrier permit is too expensive for most of us; and the price to carry a concealed SCUD missile is unheard of ;p

10 You can trade an old .44 for a new .22. 9 You can keep one gun at home and have another for when you're on the road. 8 If you admire a friend's gun and tell him so, he will probably let you try it out a few times. 7 your primary gun doesn't mind if you keep another gun for a backup. 6 Your gun will stay with you even if you run out of ammo. 5 A gun doesn't take up a lot of closet space. 4 Guns function normally every day of the month. 3 A gun doesn't ask , 'Do these new grips make me look fat?' 2 A gun doesn't mind if you go to sleep after handling it.

1 And the number one reason a gun is favored over a woman.... YOU CAN BUY A SILENCER FOR A GUN

Joined: 10/21/2010Posts: 3,402Location: The wilder parts. , United States

tender_cowboy wrote:

Top 10 reasons a gun is favored over a woman

10 You can trade an old .44 for a new .22. 9 You can keep one gun at home and have another for when you're on the road. 8 If you admire a friend's gun and tell him so, he will probably let you try it out a few times. 7 your primary gun doesn't mind if you keep another gun for a backup. 6 Your gun will stay with you even if you run out of ammo. 5 A gun doesn't take up a lot of closet space. 4 Guns function normally every day of the month. 3 A gun doesn't ask , 'Do these new grips make me look fat?' 2 A gun doesn't mind if you go to sleep after handling it.

1 And the number one reason a gun is favored over a woman.... YOU CAN BUY A SILENCER FOR A GUN

Misogynistic horse shit. If your dick will fit into a .22 a woman doesn't need you anyway.

10 You can trade an old .44 for a new .22. 9 You can keep one gun at home and have another for when you're on the road. 8 If you admire a friend's gun and tell him so, he will probably let you try it out a few times. 7 your primary gun doesn't mind if you keep another gun for a backup. 6 Your gun will stay with you even if you run out of ammo. 5 A gun doesn't take up a lot of closet space. 4 Guns function normally every day of the month. 3 A gun doesn't ask , 'Do these new grips make me look fat?' 2 A gun doesn't mind if you go to sleep after handling it.

1 And the number one reason a gun is favored over a woman.... YOU CAN BUY A SILENCER FOR A GUN

You should get together with menarealwaysignored. The two of you have a lot in common. It could be a "Brokeback Mountain" thing because clearly neither of you likes women very much.

Funny, when I am wearing a pistol in a hip holster no one comes near and I feel quite safe. Likewise when I put a rifle in the gun rack of my truck to go hunting I feel quite secure. And that SCUD Missile in the bed of my truck keeps other vehicles at least 200 ft. away.

A rifle in a gun rack around here is a good way to get your car broken into. "There's only three tempos: slow, medium and fast. When you get between in the cracks, ain't nuthin' happenin'." Ben Webster

Hey look, another 7 year old boy died in a car crash in a parking lot, better take away cars too, everyone better start riding buses and trains, it’s for the greater good.

Accidents happen, people die, that’s life; but I can guarantee more people die in car accidents then gun accidents.

I feel sad for the father however, such a simple mistake that could have been prevented by following basic gun safety, and it’ll likely haunt him for the rest of his life.

That's my biggest beef with gun laws (or lack thereof). The gun-nuttery faction that needlessly fears our black muslim communist president taking away their guns just makes me laugh. But what's not a laughing matter is the combination of guns everywhere and people with zero gun safety or gun operation training. Once upon a time, I carried a gun. I'd told myself that, based on things that had happened to me in the past, and the somewhat unsecure living conditions at the time, I needed it for protection. And while I wasn't nervous handling it*, I had no formal training, and a subsequent boyfriend of mine insisted that I either give up the gun or take the training course.

The fact that people can stroll into Wal-Mart, or a gun show, and walk out with a gun + ammo, with no further requirement for training, is insane. We might think we know what we're doing with a rifle or handgun without the proper instruction, but that's a fool's assumption. If we're going to continue to interpret 2nd Amendment rights as a guarantee for individual rights to firearms, then we should absolutely be licensing every last one, regardless of what state you're in, and a full training course and exam should be a no-exceptions requirement. We don't let people start driving without an official test, so why in the hell would we let anyone own a gun- equally deadly potential weapon that it is- without the same?

*thinking back, it's alarming how nonchalantly I handled and carried that gun. I really had quite the "me, badass girl. vs. the world" complex going on at the time.

[quote=mas101076]Hey Sprite. First and foremost you take away the guns from law abiding citizens and only criminals will have guns. 2. England and Australia did exactly that and the violent crime rate in both countries went up! England's by 300%. 3. to both your questions about pistols and automatic weapons refer to 1 and 2 and on top of that if you knew your history you would know that anytime in history any government has taken away the peoples right to bear weapons then the people became subservient to the government and no longer had any rights. Only a liberal Democrat can't understand that because they WANT to be controlled from birth to death by the Government and collect welfare and food stamps and suck off the system and believe they have a right to what I work my ass off for while they sat at home having more kids to get more of my tax dollars. You don't like our Constitution or bill of rights? then go somewhere else. I don't expect you to understand this. Only a real American would. Oh and BTW. Your wrong about the murder rate being up in places where there are more LEGAL guns. Its lower because the criminals don't know who's packing and who's not.I've seen what bullets can do. I've had a weapon pointed at me. I've been shot at. And I've shot at others. And I've killed. Im a Marine Corps Veteran and I have my weapons to protect my family and home. I'll tell you what. You put a sign in front of you house that says "This home protected by non gun-owner " and Ill put one in front of mine that says "This Home protected by a Gun Owner" and lets see who gets broken into first. Opps, wait, I already have that sign. Do you???[/quote

I cant even begin to start with where you have wrong, firstly look at the actual statistics here i will copy and paste a fragement for you. 300%

while you are not happy to be controlled by government which is great, your content to live your life based on a parchment??? I really dont think the intention of the constitution is where you see it!!

MYTH: The crime rate has been skyrocketing in the UK and Australia since stricter gun control laws were enacted in 1996-1997.TRUTH: The truth is that the UK police has changed its system for recording crime since implementing new gun control laws. This change in recording crime made it appear that the crime rate went up. The British Crime Survey, which was unaffected by this change, shows a decrease in crime. Go to the section under violent crime in the British Crime Survey. "The increase in violent crime recorded by police, in contrast to estimates provided from the BCS, appears to be largely due to increased recording by police forces. Taking into account recording changes, the real trend in violence against the person in 2001/02 is estimated to have been a reduction of around five percent." (from Chapter 6- "Violent Crime in England and Wales" of Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002- pdf file)Here is a graph from the British Crime Survey. You can see that the gun lobby's claim that violent crime skyrocketed in the England after their 1997 handgun ban is clearly false.

Secondly to suggest that we have no rights is almost as silly as suggesting the earth if 5000 years old! i'd wager we are a freer county than any, without a constitution.

There are huge reasons for America needing to rid itself of this "right to bear arms" nonsense as if you took as many western countries with gun laws as it takes to match the population of America, then the disparity of the figures on gun related deaths is absolutely ridiculous.

Much of this is down to the reliance on the constitution, while no doubt the document is vastly important to america and Americans, the thought that it cannot be changed to suit the times is folly.

Think of all the past laws, which we would all consider ridiculous now. Imagine if we could not alter them as we have done. Most countries do not need a constitution, and the government structure and laws evolve as the country does with its ever changing moralities. The build up of common law and the changes therein are vital. Like adultery for instance once a serious crime, second only to murder. How times have changed hey? this site would have been not exactly in keeping with that particular one??

Governments play an important role in attempting to run the country as the voters dictate, but to suggest that your protecting yourselves from them is plain lunacy. With any government in today's society the main weapon is media, even in dictatorships and authoritarian states we have seen its power over the last two years, arm yourself with facts then you are much better off, its another reason bearing arms is silly

America fascinating, brilliant country, but at the same time bloody stupid!

Even if you are correct, 5% is well within 1 standard deviation; so that’s hardly something you can consider to be a sign that the removal of guns actually had any impact either way at all; however it surely pissed off millions of people that enjoyed guns as recreational sport.

Drinking however is known to cause tons of careless violent and destructive acts, perhaps we should ban that to make everyone safer ;p

while you are not happy to be controlled by government which is great, your content to live your life based on a parchment??? I really dont think the intention of the constitution is where you see it!!

I think we may have a slightly better understanding of our Constitution than you do.

charlie1980 wrote:

MYTH: The crime rate has been skyrocketing in the UK and Australia since stricter gun control laws were enacted in 1996-1997.TRUTH: The truth is that the UK police has changed its system for recording crime since implementing new gun control laws. This change in recording crime made it appear that the crime rate went up. The British Crime Survey, which was unaffected by this change, shows a decrease in crime. Go to the section under violent crime in the British Crime Survey. "The increase in violent crime recorded by police, in contrast to estimates provided from the BCS, appears to be largely due to increased recording by police forces. Taking into account recording changes, the real trend in violence against the person in 2001/02 is estimated to have been a reduction of around five percent." (from Chapter 6- "Violent Crime in England and Wales" of Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002- pdf file)Here is a graph from the British Crime Survey. You can see that the gun lobby's claim that violent crime skyrocketed in the England after their 1997 handgun ban is clearly false.

Presence or absence of firearms has absolutely nothing to do with crime rates. There are countries with incredibly restrictive laws regarding possession of guns, yet staggering crime rates. Mexico, for instance. There are also countries where nearly every home has a gun in it. Many of those are fully automatic machine guns. Yet they have among the lowest crime rates in the developed world. Switzerland is the example most often given.

charlie1980 wrote:

Secondly to suggest that we have no rights is almost as silly as suggesting the earth if 5000 years old! i'd wager we are a freer county than any, without a constitution.

You have an odd definition of "freedom", that laws can be pressed into service governing your every behavior and you have no recourse to challenge them.

charlie1980 wrote:

There are huge reasons for America needing to rid itself of this "right to bear arms" nonsense as if you took as many western countries with gun laws as it takes to match the population of America, then the disparity of the figures on gun related deaths is absolutely ridiculous.

Much of this is down to the reliance on the constitution, while no doubt the document is vastly important to america and Americans, the thought that it cannot be changed to suit the times is folly.

Think of all the past laws, which we would all consider ridiculous now. Imagine if we could not alter them as we have done. Most countries do not need a constitution, and the government structure and laws evolve as the country does with its ever changing moralities. The build up of common law and the changes therein are vital. Like adultery for instance once a serious crime, second only to murder. How times have changed hey? this site would have been not exactly in keeping with that particular one??

Have you forgotten how the United States came into being? By fighting against a government whose laws changed on the whim of a tyrant. Our forefathers saw a government that had turned against her governed. Our Declaration of Independence says it quite clearly. Any time a government stops acting in the best interests of her people, then the people have a right to change that government for one more suited to their needs. They laid down a framework of rules that forever limit the government's power over her citizens because they saw it as a needful thing. Maybe you enjoy living in a land where your every breath comes at the forbearance of your "betters". We Americans choose a different course.

charlie1980 wrote:

Governments play an important role in attempting to run the country as the voters dictate, but to suggest that your protecting yourselves from them is plain lunacy. With any government in today's society the main weapon is media, even in dictatorships and authoritarian states we have seen its power over the last two years, arm yourself with facts then you are much better off, its another reason bearing arms is silly

The Syrians and Libyans may tend to disagree with your analysis about how to gain power in an authoritarian country.

charlie1980 wrote:

America fascinating, brilliant country, but at the same time bloody stupid!

At least we don't throw our citizens in prison for defending their homes against yobs and other home invaders. You invented the idea that a man's home is his castle. Apparently, that's an idea whose time has passed.

Presence or absence of firearms has absolutely nothing to do with crime rates. There are countries with incredibly restrictive laws regarding possession of guns, yet staggering crime rates. Mexico, for instance. There are also countries where nearly every home has a gun in it. Many of those are fully automatic machine guns. Yet they have among the lowest crime rates in the developed world. Switzerland is the example most often given.

Japan is a pretty good example of this:Country - JapanCivilian firearms per 100 residents - 0.6Number of homicides by firearm - 506Homicide by Firearms --rate per 100,000 population - 0.4

Country - United States of AmericaCivilian firearms per 100 residents - 89Number of homicides by firearm - 9,960Homicide by Firearms --rate per 100,000 population - 3.2

If you do the math it ends up with Japan having slightly higher murder rate PER GUN even though they have far fewer guns.

With the Syrian and Lybian thing, the Syrians have 90% succeeded, even your government has recognised them as the "official" representatives. look at Egypt as well for further evidence, go back even further to Ghandi's India.

Freedom means that i can pretty much do as i please without fear or recourse. Will my government do anything if i publicly damn them or protest- no will my government restrict what i can be- no. Do i have a choice of government- yes absolutely. however the flip side to that is that we all (america included) rely on law and order for a peaceable society to protect its citizens, ultimately freedom is relative, no-one is strictly free, but do i fear gun crime or violent crime- No. Can all say that?

and the protect the castle thing still operates, but we have whats called relative force, ie if someone attacks you without a weapon is disproportiate to retailiate with an AK47. It is perfectly legal though to prevent someone breaking into your property with a gun if you had one. the cases you have probably heard have mitagating circumstances, i.e where the intruder has been shot in the back while retreating and without stealing anything. Therefore disproportionate response

With the Syrian and Lybian thing, the Syrians have 90% succeeded, even your government has recognised them as the "official" representatives. look at Egypt as well for further evidence, go back even further to Ghandi's India.

Freedom means that i can pretty much do as i please without fear or recourse. Will my government do anything if i publicly damn them or protest- no will my government restrict what i can be- no. Do i have a choice of government- yes absolutely. however the flip side to that is that we all (america included) rely on law and order for a peaceable society to protect its citizens, ultimately freedom is relative, no-one is strictly free, but do i fear gun crime or violent crime- No. Can all say that?

and the protect the castle thing still operates, but we have whats called relative force, ie if someone attacks you without a weapon is disproportiate to retailiate with an AK47. It is perfectly legal though to prevent someone breaking into your property with a gun if you had one. the cases you have probably heard have mitagating circumstances, i.e where the intruder has been shot in the back while retreating and without stealing anything. Therefore disproportionate response

my thoughts are simple less guns less shootings

You've proved my point. Did the Syrians, Libyans, and Egyptians free their countries from oppressive dictators by arming themselves with knowledge? Or did they take up arms in their own best interests?

I don't know where you live, but since you use England as an example, and quote from British sources, I have to assume that your country follows some form of English law. Americans don't just have all the freedoms you list. We evidently have more. Some people live in fear of crime, some do not. Some people obsess over such fears, some blithely ignore the dangers. I don't fear crime, because I know that statistically, I'm not likely to be a victim of it. I respect criminals, though, and take precautions against them. I have locks on my doors, and an alarm system on my home. Not because I expect to be the victim of a burglary, but because the chance is there. I wear my seat belts when I drive. I have fire extinguishers on hand. Am I foolish to take such precautions? Owning a firearm and being well-trained in its use (well regulated) is just another precaution to take. I gather, it's a precaution denied to you.

My problem with your "disproportionate response" idea is simple. Who gets to decide what level of force is proportionate? News outlets are filled each day with stories of home invasions. In some cases, these events end with the criminals stealing a few items of value and leaving. In others, they not only rob the homeowners, but rape the women brutally, and kill everyone present. If a home invasion crew breaks into my home, how am I to fathom their intent ahead of time? How am I to know ahead of time what level of force would be "proportionate" to the level of violence I should expect?

It's simple. I can't know. They may be kids looking for a thrill, out for a lark and to heist a few trinkets. Or they may be career criminals whose very livelihood depends on making the largest score they can and leaving no witnesses behind. Since I can't divine their intent ahead of time, I'll be forced to assume the worst, and meet their invasion of my home with deadly force. After-the-fact, my response may be seen as "disproportionate." If I, and everyone I care about, make it through the encounter unharmed, then I don't care what happens to the criminals.

In closing, I'm attaching a few links for your use. These are all stories of law-abiding citizens, jailed (or charged but not yet brought to trial) for defending themselves. How much simpler it would be if Britain would adopt our own view of the "Castle Doctrine". That a man's home really is his castle, and any invaders thereof deserve whatever response they get - up to and including deadly force.

I have absolutely no problem in using force to defend your home, however i think proportionality is important, as you say statistically i am unlikely to be a victim of crime especially at my home. However in our country Wales btw the person commiting the act is hugely unlikely to be carrying a gun also. Society wise we don't in this country have everyday stories of burglaries and multiple murders etc in the manor you report at your news stand, part of that obviously has nothing at all to do with guns, just the nature of the criminal. It would however be proportiate to if you did have a gun, and you rightly say cannot devine their intentions, then shooting to disarm or wound to prevent them commiting any such act. I have no issues in making your home safe as quickly as possible. I have no particualr issues with people having guns for sport/hunting, and anyone can still have a gun in the UK with a licence, what we cant have is handguns, which I fully support as there is no need to own them

I think if analysed Libya and Syria the change of Government hasn't really come from the rebels from fighting more from pressure from outside governments and agencies to not put the rebels down with excessive force and chemical weapons etc. It is the news reporting forcing foreign governments like ours to act, It is that pressure not the rebels works that has caused the major breakthroughs.

Unfortunately this issue is sadly in the news today, and i will say its not good responsible people like your good selves who commit these terrible things, unfortunately handguns are just too easily available to these people to do such things. It is a sad day.

Joined: 4/30/2012Posts: 329Location: under bright lights, United States

Maybe we have misunderstood the second amendment completely, perhaps the word militia is not the word to focus on, but the words ''well regulated'', because our gun laws are hardly well regulated when 6 year old children are gunned down by an assault weapon available at Wal-Mart which is designed for no other reason but to kill ruthlessly.

A false rumor spreading rapidly on fringe sites like Infowars and assorted Ron Paul messageboards ties the school murders to an existing hoax surrounding the Aurora, Colo. movie theater shooting. After that attack, conspiracy theorists fixated on the accused shooter’s father, Robert Holmes, pointing to media reports that he worked as an anti-fraud scientist for credit scoring company FICO.

Somehow, a rumor surfaced online that Holmes was scheduled to testify before the Senate on the Libor banking scandal before the theater shooting.

It wasn’t true: no such hearing was ever scheduled to take place, nor is there even an obvious connection between FICO and the Libor scandal, which involved a number of high-profile banks misreporting interest rates on transactions.Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.